Replies

The frequency of errors has been about 10 Hertz.

Developing Brief Partial Summary of the Forgery Elements of the CBS/Rather Faked letter
Insightful Comments Made by FReepers
=================================================

1-- proportional spacing not generally available
2 -- superscripts not generally available
3 - small "th" single element not generally available
4 - Smart quotes. Curved apostrophes and quotation marks were not available
5-The blurriness of the copy indicates it was recopied dozens of times, tactic of forgers
6--Signature block. Typical authentic military signature block has name, then rank, then on the next line the person's position. This just has rank beneath the name.
7--Margins. These look like a computer's unjustified default, not the way a person typing would have done it.
8 -- Date usually with three letters, or in form as 110471.
9 - words run over consistent with word processor
10 - may be a Times Roman or similar font not generally available then (per Haas Atlas)
11 - signature looks faked
12 - no errors and whiteout
13 - no letterhead
14 - exact match for Microsoft Word Processor
15 - Paper size problem, Air Force and Guard did not use 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper until the 1980s.
16 - Overlap analysis is an exact match
17 - absence of hyphens to split words between lines, c/w 1970's typewriter.
18 - 5000 Longmont #8 in Houston Tx. does not exist
19 - Box 34567 is suspicious, at best. The current use of the po box 34567 is Ashland Chemical Company, A Division of Ashland Oil, Incorporated P. O. Box 34567 Houston
20 - it would have been nearly impossible to center a letterhead with proportional spacing without a computer.
21 - Bush's grade would "normally" be abbreviated "1Lt" not "1st Lt"
22 - Subject matter bizarre
23 - Air Force did not use street addresses for their offices, rather HQ AFLC/CC, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433.
24 - kerning was not available
25 - In the August 18, 1973 memo, Jerry Killian purportedly writes: "Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job." but General Staudt, who thought very highly of Lt. Bush, retired in 1972.
26 - Language not generally used by military
27 - Not signed or initialed
28 - Not in any format that a military person would use, e.g. orders not given by Memo.

If I remember right, when we used a typewriter, we used to put two spaces after a period. In typesetting and on the computer, only one space is used. It appears to me that there is only one space in the doc that I saw.

proportional spacing not generally available

Apparently IBM introduced the first proportional font electric typewriter in the early years of WWII! But the question is, which desktop Selectric model might have been available to an Air National Guard Colonel by 1972? and importantly did it use the same 'walnut', or one specially designed - and what did those faces look like? How much did a Selectric like that cost? Could it have been a Wang (a long forgotten name, but also mentioned at the blog)?

superscripts not generally available

Could an expensive proportially spaced Selectric (or Wang or whatever) have included "th", "rd", "st", "nd" as part of an extended superscript typeface?

Curved apostrophes and quotation marks were not available

What if that was the typeface on the 'walnut', for that - whatever - expensive model? I have no idea what the model numbers might have been for such a thing, how much it cost, and what the faces looked like. I would ASSUME that the expert who looked at this had ALL of these Selectric typefaces in his Atlas. I would assume that. And he couldn't make a match. But I wish he would have said which model Selectric he had ruled out.

The fact is, the 10 and 12 fixed pitch 'golf ball'/'walnut' typefaces did include a closed "4" with foot, and without foot. Some didn't, such as that typed onto Kerry's 13 MAR spot report by the receiving operator (probably using a Selectric, fixed pitch). But the 'Times New Roman' was a new designation by Apple, I think, based on industry terms perhaps, when they were light years ahead of the PC in desktop publishing, laser printers etc. If anyone remembers the old dot matrix printers, you could see similar fonts, but they were called, Prestige, or such, just as with the Selectric.

Signature block.

I don't get this. With all respect, it's not the block that matters - it's the signature. If you look at that blog page, the verified Killian signature looks NOTHING like the two on those CBS memos. People's signature change. But not that much. It looks like two different people, right there.

signature looks faked

Oh, you did mention it. Never mind.

no letterhead

Absolutely. I was thinking, though. Assuming you had an expensive and relatively rare proportional font Selectric, or Wang or whatever, these introduced tape 'memories' and punched cards, I believe. They couldn't store much, but maybe enough for half a page, or . . a letterhead? The Colonel showing off?

I have to agree with you, though. It's irregular. It's not military, even for the Guard.

Not signed or initialed

The last two, you mean. I can't imagine what the CBS people saw when they looked at those last two. They're just floating out there. Didn't it raise questions? Where's the other page? Who is it from, to? etc? Are they rough drafts, or something, and for what? I completely agree with you.

My question on SOME of it is - could a typewriter have produced that copy, and how likely is it that such would have been on the desk of an Air Guard Colonel, or even someone down the hall?

To expand and clarify your Item No. 6 - ALL Officer signature blocks in the TX ANG also had to designate that following the RANK -- e.g. "Major,TX ANG" -

THE HOAX DOCUMENTS AT CBS ARE MISSING THAT DESIGNATION!

Great list, thank you! You tied together about 3,000 posts spread over several threads into a nice, tidy guide :-)

You might want to include this one, too.

In this document, the words "not happy today either" are written in an obviously different font/size from the rest of the text.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust18.pdf

20 - it would have been nearly impossible to center a letterhead with proportional spacing without a computer.

Note on the letter head ...

111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron
P. O. Box 34567
Houston, Texas 77034

First it's not letterhead but "typed" like the rest of the letter but it's perfectly lined up and exactly the same way in both the May 4 & Aug 1 letters Any one typing and address on a typewriter would “left justify” it not center it plus if you did it is damm hard to center an address exactly same way in two dif. letters typing it….

However in Word just highlight the address and click “center” and bingo exactly the same header address centering and spacing and you see in the May 4 & Aug1 letters

Frankly these letters are so badly done I’m almost starting to wonder if someone pulled a “French Yellowcake” on the Dem’s to make them look this stupid (but then they are stupid for not checking these out better in the first place)

This evidence gathering is impressive and inspiring...We CAN FIGHT BACK!

It'll be hard to boycott some of those channels.

bttt

Got two fixes there:

Bush DID live on 5000 5000 Longmont, but had moved several years BEFORE the memo was supposedly typed up. #8 (?)

Box 34567 is legit, if you check other real records for the Sqd.

Add:

Other (legitimate) letters and documents ALL used "111th F.I.S." in regular fonts with standard letters.

"GRP" is a odd, non-standard abbreviation for Gp (which the other documents DID use!), but the writer typed NLT and then wrote Not Later Than - which is a standard abbreviation and DOESN'T have to be explained to anybody receiving orders.

Killian, a senior fighter pilot, could not type.

Private memos about the personal records of other officers could not be removed from the office files and "stored" at home, as CBS claims they were.

No plausible reason for copy-of-a-copy-of-copy-of-a-copy duplication. CBS should have been able to get the orignal, since they claim that it was received rom the files directly.

Centering of three lines in the header is EXACTLY in the middle of the page in proportional font: which is impossible for a non-typist to do with the varying points' width of each letter in proportional fonts.

PLease add this quote also: From a fellow Freeper research.

AFI36-2605

This instruction implements Air Force Policy Directive 36-26, Military Force Management, and Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 7280.3, Special Pay for Foreign Language Proficiency. It prescribes all procedures for administering the Air Force Military Personnel Testing System and Foreign Language Proficiency Pay (FLPP) program.

Which is to say, this publication has nothing to do with flight physicals.

From all this I conclude that the Killian-signed documents are forgeries, forged by someone without a very good knowledge of military correspondence or Air Force publications or procedures. Based on the Air Force's own online library of current and obsolete publications, I conclude that there never was an Air Force Manual 35-13, although there was an AF Regulation by that number. But a lieutenant colonel would never have made such a fundamental error as using "AFM" twice when he meant AFR.

Furthermore, it is likely that whatever AFR 35-13 governed, flight physicals wasn't it. My contention is buttressed by two points:

A. AFR 35-13's successor publication is a personnel management instruction (regulation).

B. This online copy of a senior NCO's routine reassignment orders, dated 1954, which cites AFR 35-13 as an authority for the transfer. A publication governing personnel assignments doesn't also govern enforcement of flight physicals.

So the forger said the physical was to be done IAW a manual, not a regulation, and named a manual that never existed anyway, and used a numeric that belonged to a personnel-management reg, not a flight-standards reg.